Archive for the ‘design’ Category

The green roof dream

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010
Written by Marcus de la fleur

A vegetable garden on our roof has been on our wish list for a while. The question is if we can pull it off.

There are structural and budgetary challenges and they are closely linked. We have some very impressive steel columns supporting an equally impressive steel beam running near the center of the basement.

green-roof-structure-001

This assembly supports the interior load bearing wall of the 1st and 2nd floor and appears so sturdy that I was convinced it would support a green roof.

The actual roof structure, the 2 by 10 old growth joists running across the building, did not generate much confidence. I assumed this was the weakest structural link and would not support the extra weight of the airy vegetable plots.

green-roof-structure-002

How much structural reinforcement is needed? Are we talking about $500, $5,000 or $50,000? To find out, we need a feasibility study from a structural engineer.

I got Kerry from Louis Shell Structures (LSS) to take a look at the house and structures with me. He was very happy that I had all the walls open. He actually could look at and measure all load bearing components, which we did for about two hours.

To accommodate the vegetable garden, I assumed a growing medium depth of 6 inches and a drainage layer depth of 2 inches. All in all, a load capacity of 80 pounds per square foot (psf).

green-roof-structure-003

Kerry took all this information back to his office and began to crunch numbers–a lot of numbers! Lo and behold, the results were somewhat unexpected.

What I assumed to be the most solid component, the steel columns and beam, turned out to be a weak link. And what I thought to be the weakest link, i.e. the roof joists, appeared to be rather sturdy. Almost all roof joists are fit to support the additional 80 psf, with the exception of the long span area over the dining room and the kitchen.

green-roof-structure-004

Over the dining room area, I will need to sister the existing roof joist with two 2 by 10s (one on each side). Over the kitchen area, I only would need to add one 2 by 10 to each existing joist. All roof joists will need vertical blocking over the load bearing wall. And that is it for the roof structure!

green-roof-structure-005

As for the interior load bearing wall on the 1st and 2nd floor, we need to add some minor reinforcement. All typical door openings need a new 2 by 8 double header to transfer the load.

green-roof-structure-006

The larger opening for the French doors has to be reinforced with a double-LVL header (2 by 9 ¼ inches).

green-roof-structure-007

Some of the studs in the load bearing wall do not line up with the floor joists, which prevents proper load transfer. To solve this problem, we either need to add studs, or move the existing studs under the floor joists.

green-roof-structure-008

Last but not least, we have the unexpected weak link in the basement. It turns out that we will need to add a 4 inch steel pipe column half way between each existing steel column. The new columns will require a 4 by 4 foot concrete spread footing.

green-roof-structure-009

As for the budget, I think we are probably in the $5,000 range for these reinforcements. I am not sure when we will be able to put up the green roof. What I do know is that we should take care of the reinforcement now, while we have the chance.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

How to put it back together

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
Written by Marcus de la fleur

I listed the various reasons why we wanted to start fresh with a new basement slab. I also mentioned a number of items and functions we hope to integrate into the new floor. It is time to figure out how we will put it all back together.

basement-floor-07

After some back and forth, we decided that a hydronic radiant floor heating system is the way to go in the basement. It makes sense and becomes somewhat cost effective, considering that we’ll start with a new floor slab. The system will meet the heating loads for the basement and add comfort.

Building codes, energy codes and Chicago Green Homes requirements aside, insulating a floor slab with a hydronic radiant system becomes imperative (see also Basement floor post). I already have half the insulation I need for under the slab. But that is only half the story, as I learned through my research.

I will have to create a bond break with the same XPS insulation around the entire floor slab perimeter (see detail above). It provides a thermal break to the foundation wall and prevents heat from bleeding out of the floor slab.

We will have to carefully seal the bond break at the top for moisture and radon gas control. If there is any radon, it should remain under the slab, where we will provide a controlled escape route. A system of perforated drainage pipes in the aggregate base is connected to a vent stack, helping to collect and remove any radon.

See also:EPA’s A Citizen’s Guide to Radon

Moisture control is built in at several levels. I already mentioned the seal over the bond break (see detail above). In addition, a polyethylene vapor barrier between the concrete slab and insulation prevents water vapor diffusion from the subgrade into the floor.

The aggregate base supporting the floor slab is ½ inch stone that also acts as a capillary break. The stone base prevents any water from wicking up from the subgrade towards the floor.

While at it, we also would like to include a perimeter drain along the entire interior of the foundation wall.  The purpose of this drain is to keep the footing reasonably dry. The dryer the foundation wall the less moisture will wick up and diffuse into the open basement, where it may cause condensation problems.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Basement floor

Saturday, December 26th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

I mentioned the salvaged insulation I got for the new basement slab. Why do we need a new floor in the basement? There are several reasons.

Take a quick look at the images below. This basement floor is uneven, crumbling and has been patched everywhere. It is time to start over.

Why not float a fresh layer of concrete over the existing floor? Our current ceiling height is 7 ½ feet and we like to keep it that way. I am 6’7” and you have no idea how good it feels to walk in a basement where you don’t have to duck. If we’d ever like to convert the basement into living space, Chicago code requires a 7 ½ foot ceiling height. We call that a pretty strong incentive to removing the old slab and start over.

Once the old, existing concrete is removed, we will have access to and can check on the sewer pipes. If any repairs are needed, this is a good time to do it.

There is no evidence of flood damage in the basement, but I suspect that the foundation walls may have a little moisture issue. A footing drain along the inside may help to solve this issue and is very easy to install once the existing floor slab is removed.

Radon gas is also an issue that we take seriously. We are not sure if we have significant or unhealthy radon levels, but it has been suggested that our basement ventilation system may effectively remove any radon gas.

After reviewing the EPA’s A Citizen’s Guide to Radon we decided that we are better off installing a proper radon removal system. Once the existing basement floor is removed it will be easy and cost effective to install – a good investment into our health.

Installing a new basement floor also allows us to resolve the heating issue by integrating a radiant floor system into the new concrete slab. That will make for a pretty comfortable basement – we hope. But it will require the rigid insulation under the slab/concrete floor. If not, the heat would draw into mother earth rather than the basement. And that would not help with the reduction of our carbon footprint.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – how much is needed?

Sunday, November 1st, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

We figured out that insulating the building from the inside with spray polyurethane foam (or, in short, spray foam) is the most suitable approach. It avoids potential conflicts with our masonry shell and will help with the moisture management in the brick walls.

The next question is: how much insulation do we need? We can look at it in terms of R-value (thermal resistance) or the depth of the spray foam layer, although both are somewhat proportionate to each other.

Here is what the building code says: R-49 for ceilings, R-19 for exterior walls and R-10 for basement foundations (Chicago Building Code, Chapter 18-13-102.1.1; Building thermal envelope insulation, Table 18-13-402.1.1). The Chicago Green Homes program requires R-52 for ceiling, R-21 for exterior walls and R-15 for basement foundations.

Having our eye on the zero-energy goal, it appears that more insulation or the highest possible thermal resistance is better. But there are limitations we have to wrestle with.

To keep the moisture management of the masonry shell intact, the whole interior wall assembly must have a perm rate of greater than 1. Closed cell spray foam has a better thermal resistance than open cell foam, but also lower perm rates. Limiting the closed cell foam to a 1 inch layer followed by open cell foam should yield the right perm rate and allow for the needed diffusion of water vapor through the wall assembly.

And then there is the space limitation. The building originally had no insulation. There was the outside masonry shell, a ¾ inch furring strip, followed by a ¾ inch wood lath and plaster assembly, which we removed.

Replacing the old 1 ½” interior wall assembly with 1 inch of closed cell foam plus dry wall, would only give us an R-value of around 6.5. Adding more insulation, beyond the 1 inch, would take away from the room size. Here are some scenarios:

insulation-section-01

My friend David Lemair knew about our effort to balance room size with R-value and pointed me to an article in Fine Homebuilding. I learned that spray polyurethane foam has a point of diminishing returns:

“… you would think that an R-40 wall full of spray foam would perform twice as well as a wall sprayed to R-20 with the same foam, but that is not the case.”

Source: Yagid, Rob; Spray Foam – What Do You Really Know?; Fine Homebuilding, June/July 2009

The article goes on to explain that the increased effectiveness from the R-20 to the R-40 wall is only about 2%. Open cell foam apparently reaches its point of diminishing return at 5 inches, closed cell foam already at 3 or 4 inches. No technical explanation is given to what causes that diminishing return, but I would really like to know!

The puzzle is coming together. We have determined that the closed cell foam must be limited to 1 inch to keep the perm rate greater than 1. It looks like open cell spray foam has its point of diminishing returns at 5 inches. That would give us a 6 inch insulation assembly with an R-value of about 24 that takes 4 ½ to 5 inches away from the room size. This is a good balance between R-value and room size.

insulation-section-02

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – which material cuts it?

Monday, October 26th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

If you have followed the previous posts about the insulation conflicts and moisture management issues, you may ask why not go simple – skip insulation altogether and just have brick wall exposed on the inside. A very tempting thought, isn’t it? It would look pretty good and we could avoid all these problems.

But we also would create a big problem. A three wythe (or 12”) thick brick wall may have a R-4 value. The air film on the wall would give me another R-1, totaling R-5. That is if the brick is dry. If it is wet, these values will drop. A decent window may have a better R-value than the brick wall! We need good insulation, if we want to have a decent shot at our zero-energy goals.

There is quite a variety of materials to pick from, starting with the very common fiberglass batts, the more expensive rigid foam boards, or materials with high recycled content such as blown-in cellulose or recycled cotton batts.

Understanding the limitations and opportunities that come with our masonry shell, and having distilled two key principles, the choice actually narrows to just one material: blown-in foam insulation.

“A low[…] risk approach to interior masonry retrofits that has been used for several years involves spraying an airtight insulating foam directly to the back of the existing masonry [shell].”

Reference: Building Science Digest 114 (Interior Insulation Retrofits of Load-Bearing Masonry Walls in Cold Climates)

Also known as spray polyurethane foam (or in short: spray foam), it would eliminate air gaps and air leakage if applied across the entire interior shell, including the roof. Basically, it would give us an airtight building envelope and act as a moisture barrier (or vapor retarder) helping with the control of incidental rain penetration.

A Building Science publication (Building Science Digest 114) explains spray foam rationales and choice in detail and is worth while reading.

Because spray foam is semi-permeable (a vapor retarder but not a vapor barrier), it will allow moisture in the masonry shell to diffuse to the outside and in. I have to make sure that the perm rate of the entire interior wall assembly is greater than 1 – and we are all set!

There are two kinds of spray polyurethane foams out there:

Closed Cell

As the name suggests, each little cell (or bubble) encloses an air pocket, forming a monolithic airtight layer at an R-value of around 6.5 per inch. Most closed cell spray foams have a density of about 2 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and have a low diffusion or perm rate (around 1 to 2 at 1 inch thickness).

Open Cell

This foam is much lighter at a density of 0.5 pcf and forms more of a web structure. It is still considered airtight if applied at a depth of several inches. The R-value for open cell products hovers around 3.5 per inch. Water vapor can diffuse freely through the material.

The one disadvantage of spray polyurethane foam that is often mentioned is cost. And yes, it is much more expensive than your typical fiberglass batts – closed cell more so than open cell, because it requires more material. Plus, it needs to be installed by a trained professional.

  • 6” of fiberglass batts (around R-19): $0.30 to $0.60 per square foot (material only)
  • 6”of open cell spray foam (around R-21): around $2.50 per square foot (material and labor)
  • 6”of closed cell spray foam (around R-39): $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot (material and labor)

We would pay more – and that is fine – because we will get more. With spray foam, we don’t have to worry about air leakage, condensation and potential mold problems, or diminished R-values. Instead, we get the airtight building envelope we need, and lasting R-values. If we would try to accomplish the same results with cheaper insulation materials, we probably would, in the end, pay as much.

A drawback that I still debate is that spray polyurethane foam is a petroleum based product. The good news is that most spray foams are now VOC (volatile organic compounds) free, using water as their blowing agent. Some products are marketed as green because of some soy based oil content. That overall content is, however, relatively small, plus I am not sure if I would accept soybean farming as a sustainable practice.

Another unanswered question that keeps me pondering has to do with the end-of-life use. There is no known recycling option or second use for this material. If the spray foam ever gets torn out, it is likely to end up in a landfill. The only conciliation I have is that it should serve and maintain its performance for several generations.

More info on spray foam:

What is:

Air barrier

Moisture barrier: See references below to vapor barrier and retarder.

Vapor barrier and vapor retarder

Additional resource: Consumer’s Guide to Vapor Barriers at the U.S. Department of Energy

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – starts with moisture management

Friday, October 23rd, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Following up on the previous post, common brick, like in our building, is very pervious to water. If adding insulation to a storage or mass wall system, such as our brick shell, one of the issues is condensation and potential freeze-thaw damage to the brick work. Insulation on the inside of the building can lead to condensation and interrupts the heat transfer into the masonry shell during the cold season. As such it is very likely that the shell will go through more freeze-thaw cycles than ever before.

“Freeze-thaw damage […] require the material to be at or near capillary saturation (100% Relative Humidity)”

Reference: Building Science Digest 138 (Moisture and Materials)

“Driving rain is typically the largest source of moisture for the above-grade building enclosure”

Reference: Building Science Digest 013 (Rain Control in Buildings)

The removal of water from our brick shell, or keeping the rain out, is – let’s say – rather important to its performance and integrity. It comes down to a balance of moisture storage capacity versus drying capacity. So, how does water or moisture move through a brick wall during wetting or drying?

I had to re-learn some basics of water and its various states (solid, liquid, vapor and adsorbed). The liquid and vapor states appear the most relevant. The former is pretty straight forward – or for that matter straight downward, controlled by gravity (water flows/drains downhill).

Good detailing can prevent rain from entering the storage or mass wall system and help with the balance between wetting and drying. This includes tuck pointing, drip edges, and the right flashing details, particularly around windows and in corners. Rain deflection through overhangs is another strategy.

“It should be clear that drainage is not sufficient for this purpose since it will leave large amount of saturated (100% Relative Humidity) material. Capillary and absorbed moisture can only be dried by evaporation followed by diffusion.”

Reference: Building Science Digest 138 (Moisture and Materials)

We are now talking about water vapor. Its movement is governed by three rules:

  1. Water vapor in the air moves from high pressure to low pressure areas.
  2. Water vapor diffuses through permeable materials from warm to cold.
  3. Water vapor diffuses through permeable materials from areas of higher concentrations to areas of lower concentrations.

As part of the drying mechanisms, I have to allow water vapor to diffuse out of the wall, whether towards the inside or outside.

In the summer, water in the brick tends to diffuse to the inside of the building, following the thermal and concentration gradient. Whatever kind of insulation system I decide to use, it is important that it allows for that inward driven moisture (water vapor) to pass.

“Rule Number One: Never install a vapor barrier on the inside of a wall assembly, which has a moisture reservoir cladding…”

Reference: Building Science Digest 108 (Investigating and Diagnosing Moisture Problems)

If moisture cannot pass, or if I add a vapor barrier to the interior wall assembly, summer moisture will condense in the wall assembly. That is a perfect recipe for water damage and mold growth – something our building has already seen in its past.

During winter, vapor tends to diffuse to the outside – again – along the thermal and concentration gradient. That vapor may have its origins in high Relative Humidity levels in the living spaces. The insulation I plan to add to the inside will reduce the temperature along the interior masonry shell. Inside air diffusing outwards and coming into contact with the cold masonry face could condense.

“Given sufficient air leakage and sufficiently high indoor Relative Humidity this condensate can accumulate faster than it can dry, and the interior face of the masonry will become saturated.”

Reference: Building Science Digest 114 (Interior Insulation Retrofits of Load-Bearing Masonry Walls in Cold Climates)

This in turn can create the potential for freeze-thaw damage.

Using insulation that can eliminate any air gap or air leakage with an airtight layer along the masonry shell should prevent condensation and subsequent freeze-thaw damage. But it still has to allow for vapor diffusion during summer (see above).

Confused? I don’t blame you! It took me a while to wrap my head around this. Eventually, I was able to boil it down to two key principles that I can use:

  1. The insulation will need to eliminate air gaps and needs to be air tight to eliminate air leakage driven condensation in the winter.
  2. The insulation will need to be permeable to water vapor for inward diffusion and drying during summer.
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – lots of conflicts

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Sometimes coincidence is your savior. I discussed our brick work with Martin Bazula, a restoration mason here in Chicago, and shared our goal of super-insulating the building – from the inside. Martin paused, thought and proceeded to explain to me that these old common brick walls were not intended to be insulated. In fact, the absence of insulation is somewhat their lifeline, helping with rain water and moisture management on and in the wall, and reducing the number of freeze-thaw cycles.

I almost had kittens! We finally found our dream home with a masonry shell. I already gave up the idea of insulating from the outside. And now I learn that the masonry shell, which was so important to us, may not be compatible with our insulation goals and ultimately the zero-energy objective!

Did you think that brick is impervious to water? Think again! Common brick is a like a sponge. Did you ever notice how masons dump or soak brick in water before they lay it? That is to prevent a dry brick from sucking all the moisture out of the fresh mortar during the curing process, which may lead to cracks. Plus, the mortar joints are also porous and act like sponges. So how do these brick walls, such as ours, help with the rain control and moisture management?

It actually is one of the oldest strategies out there. The Romans used it. It’s called storage or mass walls.

“This approach requires the use of an assembly of materials with enough storage mass and moisture tolerance to absorb all rainwater that is not drained or otherwise removed from the outer surface. In a functional mass or storage wall this moisture is eventually removed by evaporative drying before it reaches the inner surface of the wall. “

Reference: Building Science Digest 013 (Rain Control in Buildings)

The challenge of insulating such storage or mass walls, which Martin Bazula pointed out to me, was confirmed in another article I researched:

“Adding insulation to the [storage or mass] walls of such masonry buildings in cold, and particularly cold and wet, climates may cause performance and durability problems in some cases.”

Reference: Building Science Digest 114 (Interior Insulation Retrofits of Load-Bearing Masonry Walls in Cold Climates)

Great! What’s next? I hope a solution to this problem!

You can contact Martin Bazula at mbazula@hotmail.com

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – how it started

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Our two key goals are super-insulation (high R-value) and air-tightness (elimination of leaks and drafts). Simple enough, isn’t it? To my surprise, this issue got me deep into rocket science. There was a very steep learning curve and my ideas and aspirations on insulation options had changed several times over the past year based on emerging facts and realities.

While we were house hunting, we were only considering buildings with a masonry shell for the structural and longevity aspects (see also “Dream home wish list” post). Another idea of mine was to use the masonry building shell as thermal mass by leaving it exposed to the interior and applying the insulation on the outside.

bldg-shell-01

Fast forward. We now own our house with typical Chicago common-brick side elevations and an ornate front elevation. Our dream of exposed interior brick walls radiating warmth appears to materialize. To get there, we will need to super-insulate the building from the outside. I began to research our options, and ran into a brick wall (pun intended).

bldg-shell-02

Do we really want to hide our ornate front elevation behind insulation? Of course not! We would insulate the front from the inside – and would be left with big thermal bridges to the left and right. Not good.

Then there is the dimensional issue. Portions of the west side of our building are almost on the property line. We would encroach into our neighbor’s property if we began to insulate on the outside of these wall sections.

How about insulating portions on the outside and others on the inside? Not only is this getting really complicated, but I end up with a whole bunch of thermal bridges that would defeat our insulation goal.

And, of course, there are code issues to contend with. Chicago common brick has an excellent fire rating. Whatever I would use to cover the outside insulation will have to meet the one-hour fire rating requirement.

Most innovative ideas start with an uphill struggle. If we really pushed it and worked long and hard, we possibly would find a way to make it work. The question is: Is it worth it?

I talked with a lot of friends, contractors and green building professionals and did not receive any encouragement for my idea – absolutely none. Nor did I find any supporting clues in my research. The consensus was that insulating our building from the outside was too resource intensive and expensive to justify any thermal mass benefit in the interior – thermal mass we may not even need with a super-insulated and airtight envelope.

Time to hit the reset button! How about insulating the shell from the interior? But what would be the best material choice? And how can we do this without compromising the integrity of the 100+ year old Chicago common-brick walls?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Design workshop

Sunday, October 11th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Saturday 08/22/2009 – the scheduling and preparations are complete and the long anticipated design workshop is finally becoming reality. I have the energy model and an agenda – and most importantly – I have gathered a green team.

We started the day in the house with a quick inventory of the gutted basement and first floor. Because the house offered no comfortable or clean enough room in which to conduct the workshop, I had organized a meeting room one block north at Saint Agatha Catholic Academy.

workshop

Corbett Lundsford from the Green Team Group started the workshop session with a summary of the energy model results, providing us the foundation for the following discussions, which we had organized into the broad subject areas insulation, heating system, ventilation, and floor plan layout.

Insulation

The two key principles are super-insulated (high R-value) and airtight (elimination of leaks and drafts). Simple enough, isn’t it? To my surprise, this issue got us deep into rocket science. I will dedicate a post or two just to this subject – so stay tuned!

My research has pointed me to open cell and closed cell spray foam insulation. We discussed alternative materials, environmental impact, the objective of an airtight building envelope, R-value and point of diminishing returns, as well as moisture management in the masonry building shell.

The consensus that emerged was that spray foam insulation may not be the most economic option (ranging from $0.40 to $1.25 per board foot), but would allow us to effectively meet our insulation and air tightness goals in the building shell. Cellulose insulation, with a high recycled content, was suggested as an alternative for the basement and first floor ceiling, providing the needed insulation and sound attenuation.

Because we plan to install a new concrete floor in the basement, we discussed insulation under the new floor slab. With no insulation, the floor slab would provide a nice cooling mass during summer. It would, however, make heating rather inefficient. The final recommendation was to integrate insulation under the concrete slab. It would provide the right conditions for a radiant floor heating system, which leads us to the next topic.

Heating systems

Our preferred energy source for heating and domestic hot water is a solar hot water (SHW) system. The preferred heating method is radiant hot water, such as cast iron baseboard heaters. The green team was quick to educate us about the water temperature demand of hot water radiators (typically ranging from 150 to 180°F) and the capacity of a SHW system (typically ranging from 100 to 120°F). We have a 30 to 80°F temperature difference problem to solve!

Not only that, but the green team recommended a backup option to the SHW for those overcast and cold stretches. I would love to install a biomass furnace. The problem is that the best, cleanest and most efficient models are all European. The green team suggested a high efficiency condensing gas furnace instead. I could always switch to a biomass furnace once a clean and high efficiency model becomes available on the U.S. market.

With a temperature problem to solve and a need for a backup furnace, geothermal entered the discussion as an alternative to SHW. It could provide the energy needed for heating and domestic hot water. That said, I was concerned about the electricity demand by the pumps and condensers of a geothermal system, making our zero energy goal more challenging. Geothermal and SHW is something that will require more research and additional expertise.

Ventilation

Ever heard of sick building syndrome? That’s when a building does not get sufficiently ventilated, the air becomes stale and unpleasant and pollutants and toxicants start to accumulate. With our plans for a super-insulated and air tight building envelope, indoor air quality (IAQ) and proper ventilation becomes very important.

I was hoping for passive ventilation option to avoid ventilation duct work in the building. It would be difficult to integrate into the interior architecture without having it look ridiculous. I pressed the green team hard on passive ventilation, but had to concede that some duct work will be needed if we would like to use a heat recovery or energy recovery ventilator (ERV or HRV).

Basically, ERV and HRV are air-to-air heat exchangers, taking the energy from the exhaust air and transferring it to the unconditioned supply air. I now get the fresh air I need for ventilation at minimized energy loss. The tradeoff is that I need to have the supply and exhaust points at opposite ends of each floor. The green team’s recommendation was to consider lowering the ceiling by 6 inches (from 10 feet down to 9 ½ feet) and using the flat, rectangular ducts. Although cylindrical ducts would create less drag on the air flow, we’re making the esthetic choice to trade some flow for the ability to fit the duct work into the ceiling.

Floor plan layout

My idea was that after we had brainstormed and decided on heating and ventilation, we could look at the floor plan to determine what utilities should go where. Well, I had to table this discussion. The problem was that our MEP (Mechanical-Electrical-Plumbing) contact was a no show for the workshop. We had no one who had the engineering expertise to confirm the feasibility of our ideas or where to place and how to route utilities. Instead my research list grew and was to keep me busy for the next few weeks.

A big thank you…

… to our workshop green team:

  • Howard Allen – Howard Allen Architects
  • John Edel – Chicago Sustainable Manufacturing Center
  • Ted Krasnesky – Pepper Construction
  • David Lemaire – Hammerhead Carpentry, Inc.
  • Corbett Lundsford – Dream Green Group LLC
  • Drew Schmidt – student at Waubonsee Community College
  • Mark Weitekamper – GreenWerks, Inc.
  • Ryan Wilson – Conservation Design Forum, Inc.
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Energy model

Monday, September 28th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

The road to a design workshop for our sustainable rehab took us to an energy model for the house (see also 09/09/2009 post). Our goal is to have a super insulated and airtight building envelop. But how much energy, CO2 emission and dollars will this save us and how much heating will we need?

I provided Corbett Lundsford from the Green Team Group with building floor plans and some building parameters that he input into the REM/Rate™ Home Energy Model:

Building shell:

  • Insulation of building shell: R-21 in 2×4 stud wall, 16 inches on center
  • Insulation of basement slab: R-5
  • Roof insulation: R-52
  • Windows: Double glazed, low E wood frame windows,  U-value of 0.25 and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.5
  • Exterior doors: Front door with U-value of 0.27 and all other exterior doors with U-value of 0.19
  • Infiltration: 0.2 natural Air Changes per Hour (natural ACH)

Mechanical equipment:

  • Heating: radiant heat (hot water radiators) with natural gas fired 90 AFUE boiler at 60 kBtu/h capacity
  • Domestic hot water: natural gas fired water heater at 0.63 EF with 30 gallon storage tank
  • Cooling: We decided against any air conditioning system, but would like to use ceiling fans and have a small window unit as a backup if needed. Over the past few years, we had a window unit in our un-insulated and drafty Elmhurst apartment. We may have used it three or five days in a year, usually when we had visitors. Knowing that we will now switch a very well insulated and airtight envelop, we don’t see the point investing in an air-conditioning system we won’t use.
  • Ventilation: Energy Recovery Ventilator at 300 cubic feet per minute (cfm) capacity and 250 watts

Renewable Energy:

  • Solar hot water: 128 square feet of evacuated tubes with 150 gal storage tank
  • Sun room for passive solar: Our enclosed back porch faces due south and offers the best and only opportunity for passive solar gain in the cooler seasons. We have the idea to create a ‘sun room’ with glazing on most of the south elevation, and awnings for shade in the summer months.  The infiltrating sun in the cooler months would heat up the building’s rear brick wall. We hope to use this thermal mass and energy to precondition air with which we would ventilate the rest of each floor.

Results

Corbett run three model scenarios for us, each with a slight modification to the above mentioned sun room:

Unconditioned sun room, full glazing

  • Design Load (kBtu/h): 53.2
  • Annual Load (MMBtu/h): 63.1
  • Annual consumption (MMBtu/h): 70.7

Conditioned sun room, full glazing

  • Design Load (kBtu/h): 52.3
  • Annual Load (MMBtu/h): 61.8
  • Annual consumption (MMBtu/h): 69.2

Conditioned sun room with ½ window sizes

  • Design Load (kBtu/h): 48.6
  • Annual Load (MMBtu/h): 57.3
  • Annual consumption (MMBtu/h): 64.2

I have to admit that I was surprise. I did not expect that bringing the sun room into the conditioned envelope would reduce our energy needs. In other words, heating the sun room will help us to save energy. Sounds somewhat counter intuitive, doesn’t it? That the reduction in window size would result in better efficiency was more intuitive, as windows are the weakest link in the envelope.

Here is another interesting result that adds to the feel good factor: Corbett compared our performance targets (outlined above) to those of conventional building performance levels. Lo and behold, we could save as much as $1553.00 a year on energy cost (and that is with current energy prices…).

Opportunities:

This energy model is by no means the final word, but provides us with a baseline that we can use for the workshop, design and decision making processes. I was sieving through the report details looking for opportunities and found them in the component load summary. This part of the report identifies how much energy (in Btu) is needed by or lost to various building components.

The single biggest energy loss is attributed to infiltration, in other words, having warm air leaking out of the building and cold air leaking in. This loss occurs at a rate from 28.8 to 30.5 MMBtu/yr., which is anywhere from 45 to 53% of the annual heat load! I like to think that this has opportunity written all over it if we take objective of a super insulated and air tight building envelope seriously!

What is:

ACH (Air Changes per Hour)

AFUE (Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency)

Btu (British Thermal Unit)

EF (Energy Factor)

Low E (Low Emissivity)

R-value

SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient)

U-value

  • Share/Save/Bookmark